Trifludimoxazin is a new herbicide that inhibits protoporphyrinogen oxidase and is targeted for commercial market introduction in North America, South America, and Asia. It will be available both as a standalone product and in a 1:2 mixture with saflufenacil. The herbicide is intended for use in preplant burndown (PPBD) and preemergence applications in cereal, corn (Zea mays L.), soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and pulse crops to control a variety of annual broadleaf and grass weed species. Additionally, it is planned to be used in tree crops, oil-palm (Elaeis quineensis Jacq.), and non-crop areas.

In this study, we meticulously evaluated the performance and effectiveness of both the standalone herbicide and the innovative mixture concept in combating prevalent weeds commonly encountered in corn and soybean fields. Our findings revealed that both products exhibited exceptional efficacy, significantly reducing the presence of these troublesome weeds. Furthermore, the mixture concept not only demonstrated commendable soil mobility but also showcased impressive residual activity, positioning it as a powerful tool for sustainable weed control. These promising effects are further substantiated by our comprehensive ADME (Adsorption-Distribution-Metabolism-Extraction) studies, which provide insight into the behavior and longevity of the herbicides in the agricultural ecosystem.

Adsorption of 14C-imazaquin {2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acid} and imazethapyr [2-(4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl)-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid] to soil increased as soil pH decreased from 8.0 to 3.0 in laboratory studies. Significantly more imazethapyr3 (AC-263,499) than imazaquin was adsorbed at soil pH levels 3.0 and 5.5, while the greatest difference in adsorption behavior between the two herbicides was observed at a soil pH of 5.5. In greenhouse studies, phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays L.) was greater for imazaquin than AC-263,499 applied at 26 and 53 g ai/ha. There were significant pH by herbicide and pH by rate interactions, but in trend analysis only a small proportion of the corn response (r2 = 0.01 to 0.35) was attributed to increasing soil pH values. In field studies where imazaquin was applied to soil pH levels of 4.2 to 4.8, 5.4 to 5.5, and 5.8 to 6.2, injury to corn across all pH levels decreased as the time delay between herbicide application and corn planting increased. There was no significant effect of soil pH on imazaquin injury to corn planted in July or August. Decreased injury from imazaquin was observed in 1985 on corn planted in June on the soil pH of 5.8 to 6.2. Imazaquin injury was less for June-planted corn in 1984 than in 1985, across all soil pH levels.

Selective placement studies were conducted under greenhouse conditions to determine the relative importance of root vs. foliar absorption of postemergence-applied CGA-362622 by torpedograss. All application methods were equally effective in reducing torpedograss foliage as measured 4 wk after treatment. However, foliar + soil and soil-only were more effective than foliar-only in suppressing regrowth at 10 wk after treatment. Foliar absorption by torpedograss and subsequent translocation was determined with radiotracer techniques. After 72 h, 29% of the applied CGA-362622 had been absorbed, and 2 and 7% of the amount applied had accumulated in developing rhizomes and roots, respectively. CGA-362622 was more readily absorbed and translocated by the root. Hydroponically grown plants were transferred to a hydroponic solution spiked with CGA-362622 at 200 ppb. After 6 h, whole plant concentration was 113.1 ng/plant. Only 56% of amount absorbed remained in the roots, the remainder having been translocated to other tissues. The youngest leaf and the immature rhizomes accumulated 2 and 15%, respectively. CGA-362622 soil adsorption was slightly influenced by CGA-362622 concentration and greatly influenced by soil pH. Average percent recovered in the soil solution (i.e., not absorbed) was 15.3 and 27.4% at pH 5.7 and 6.7, respectively. Soil mobility was also pH dependent. Soil solution and soil mobility data support the observation that soil application followed by root entry is more effective in delivering phytotoxic concentrations to the regenerative tissues of torpedograss than foliar application.

Selective placement studies were conducted under greenhouse conditions to determine the relative importance of root vs. foliar absorption of postemergence-applied quinclorac by torpedograss. Foliar + soil and soil-only applications were more effective than foliar-only in reducing torpedograss foliage at 4 wk after treatment (WAT). However, foliar-only and foliar + soil were more effective than soil-only in suppressing regrowth at 10 WAT. Quinclorac foliar absorption by torpedograss and subsequent translocation, as determined with radiotracer techniques, was minimal. After 72 h, only 26% of the applied quinclorac had been absorbed, and 13.7% of the amount applied remained within the treated leaf. Only 0.3% of applied was recovered in the roots, and none was detected in the developing rhizomes. Quinclorac was readily root absorbed and translocated. After 6 h, a 26.7 μg/plant dose of quinclorac had been absorbed, and 54% of this quantity remained in the roots; the remaining 46% having been translocated throughout the plant. The youngest leaf and the immature rhizomes accumulated 5 and 9% of the amount absorbed, respectively. Quinclorac was not readily soil sorbed as determined by soil solution experiments. Quinclorac was displaced nearly concomitant with the wetting front in soil chromatography. Soil solution concentration and soil mobility were greater at pH 6.7 than at 5.7. Results establish that consistent control of torpedograss with quinclorac is dependent on soil entry and root absorption. Unfortunately, the propensity of quinclorac to be water displaced could negatively affect this control.